/m/peds

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Weiner also said the commissioner’s office isn’t bound by the terms of the joint drug prevention and treatment program—which calls for 50- and 100-game suspensions and a lifetime ban for three failed drug tests—because the players involved in the Biogenesis case did not fail tests and are being investigated for “non-analytical” reasons.

Umm, what terms is the commissioner's office bound by then? Pretty interesting.

#4 It's possible that they in fact have strong evidence. And how the evidence was obtained really wouldn't matter here.

And #5 Kind of reminds me of Ken Moffet's short lived tenure. He appeared to buy MLB's arguments about the need for harsh penalties on the recreational drug from and Marvin Miller (nominally retired but still had huge influence with the players) arranged to have him fired. And replaced with Fehr.

In a sense you could view Fehr's intractability as a condition of employment.

Jeff Passan had a recent story about Fehr returning as a fill-in for Wehner if his condition didn't improve.

Weiner needs to be careful and not be fooled into thinking MLB owners don't want to take the PA to the woodshed the way NBA, NHL and NFL owners have taken those respective unions out back and spanked them. They had a good cordial run but that only works if the union continues to bargain from a position of strength. As someone who doesn't want to see a work stoppage, I'd prefer the union maintained a clearly demarcated line in the sand for ownership.

#2 Indeed, very interesting. But I'm really puzzled that the PA appears to be accepting the logic of, penalties not spelled out therefore it's up to the commissioner's discretion. They fought this point tooth and nails in the 80s and early 90s and won almost every round.

Maybe the overwhelming majority of players aren't cheating and are no longer willing to go to the mat for the ones who are like the BTF Association of Nihilistic Enablers is.

Even if the rest of the players don't like Arod, Braun or anyone else involved here, they have to fight this no? The union basically saying Selig can do as he wishes here sets an awfully bleak precedent for labor relations moving forward I would think. And if I am one of the players being investigated, I would have a bit of a problem with my union saying something like this publicly.

Dunno. Maybe it's simply an indication that they know the evidence is ironclad. On the other hand, the argument in the 80s was never (or at least rarely) what happened. The convictions were a matter of public record. The issue was the appropriate penalty (over and above what the criminal justice system handed down).

I remain unconvinced that an arbitrator will find the argument that they beat the tests so what they did needs to be punished more severely than a positive test in any way persuasive. Or that lying to the investigators (that's supposedly an argument for the heavier penalties) is in any way punishable.

"In theory, [the players] could be suspended for five games or 500 games, and we could then choose to challenge that," Weiner said. "The commissioner's office is not bound by the scale we have in the basic agreement."

That is, a 150 game suspension imposed for reasons other than a positive test wouldn't be invalid on its face as it would plainly be if the Commissioner tried to impose it for a positive test, where the penalties are spelled out in the agreement. That's pretty clearly right, but just because Selig can do whatever he wants at first instance doesn't say anything about the likelihood of a particular penalty being upheld in arbitration.

Like #11 I find it hard to imagine that an arbitrator will agree that a case built on non-anlaytic evidence should attract greater punishment than a failed test or that lying to investigators about one violation is the equivalent of a second violation, but I guess we shall see.

Dunno. Maybe it's simply an indication that they know the evidence is ironclad. On the other hand, the argument in the 80s was never (or at least rarely) what happened. The convictions were a matter of public record. The issue was the appropriate penalty (over and above what the criminal justice system handed down).

Even with very un-popular positions, with ironclad evidence, unions generally have a responsibility to give their members full-throated support. Its not a perfect comparison because the suspension was for something he said, but I recall the union defending John Rocker back when he got in hot-water over the SI article...maybe full-throated is a bad description (they weren't going around taking out full page ads prasing him), but they definitely made it clear they would be protecting his rights.

It can be read that he's going to cave. It can also be read that he doesn't want to be provocative. There is no need to sound like you oppose any penalty - there are penalties in the agreement and the players and their union have agreed to them. So, they clearly are okay with PED users being punished. It sounds like a wait and see: if the penalties fit the evidence and offenses, they'll probably appeal but in a pro forma sort of way. If they try to suspend A-Rod 500 games because some dude who can't be corroborated says he one time gave him some stuff that is questionable, they'll fight like hell.

Really, for all the speculation, we should know soon. I really, really hope MLB doesn't over-reach. To me, if they want to make a statement, they should tone it down. A 50 game suspension that sticks is, for them, much better than a 150 game suspension that doesn't.

It was alluded to above, but one thing to keep in mind is that there's very likely been a seachange in how the players themselves view these issues.

2001 was a loooong time ago. Look at how much was made of how young so many of these All Stars are? Someone who's a first-time free agent this year has never played in organized baseball that didn't have a testing regime. It's been a part of their life, and they very likely believe that it provides a level playing field and protects their health.

Since it's been normalized for so many players, those who are seeking to go around the system are the odd ones out now. That wasn't the case 15 years ago -- but those players are mostly out of the game. PED users are going to be likely perceived as not just cheats in competition, but cheaters taking money out of clean players' pockets.

Weiner's statement the other day about leaks emphasized the PA's commitment to having a strong program. That's probably not lip service, but representative of a silent majority of players -- a completely different cohort than existed when we first started the debate eons ago.

@16:Chris, I think this is likely mostly true. Still, if MLB attempts to go outside the bounds of the agreement, the union will defend. But they may not be terribly motivated to fight if the agreement is mostly adhered to.

Expanding on #16, most of the players today are almost certainly smart enough to understand that the cheaters, fairly or unfairly, ultimately serve to cast suspicion on everyone in the game.

If, for example, Chris Davis is 100% clean, think for a moment about how much it probably pisses him off that he has put in all these years of honest hard work into becoming a great player since he was a child, and his reward now is to have to deal with people openly questioning whether he's a cheater. And all because of the actions of guys like Bonds, McGwire, and Rodriguez that he had absolutely no control over.

Don't tell me that most of the players don't care about these kinds of perceptions, because that's bullsh#t. We have had more than enough Hall of Fame votes now to see the kind of impact the perceptions have.

Why? If you're a player who isn't cheating, why would you want to help the ones who are? They're stealing your milk money.

Yeah, I never understood the lack of whistleblowers within baseball. There must be guys who don't want PEDs in the game and know about guys using PEDs. The locker room Bro Code seems to have a bit too much sway over players' decision making skills.

I was under the impression that Weiner himself had issued a statement saying that wouldn't happen.

He did, while mentioning his own health issues (which I'm wondering if those issues are giving any current members pause). It seemed strange at the time that he mentioned that Fehr and Ozra would not be coming back, though I guess that was in response to the Passan thing.

Yeah, I never understood the lack of whistleblowers within baseball. There must be guys who don't want PEDs in the game and know about guys using PEDs. The locker room Bro Code seems to have a bit too much sway over players' decision making skills.

I thought Helling had it right. The Players Association should have been out front at the start. The proliferation of PEDs didn't benefit the union as a whole in any way, other than the privacy of their piss. The PED non-policy didn't create any additional jobs. There's no reason to think it increased salaries (if so, it was indirect, at best). It created a situation where players had to choose between two potentially unappealing options (falling behind professionally or start a potentially dangerous regimen). And it put a whole bunch of players at risk, legally, physically and reputationally.

In contrast, the previous system was good for the owners (they accrued the benefits of improved performance at absolutely no cost to them). In fact, a testing system was going to cost the owners money.

@18 I think you're right, and I think that if you read the tea leaves, this is what's happening. They'll do what they can to preserve procedures and not set too much precedent... but other than that, let these guys hang.

I know the CW around here is that ARod is misunderstood and unfairly beaten up by the media. And that's somewhat legit. But think about how a player must feel about him. Not only did he use before, but once caught, he continued to look for ways to use, all while playing on a monster contract that's basically being subsidized by other players. These guys have to absolutely loath him.

Why is there confusion about what penalties the Commissioner's office can impose? After all, if the penalty for failing a drug test is 50 games, and the penalty for being suspected of using steroids is apparently a permanent ban and ineligibility for the Hall of Fame, it's only logical that the penalty when there is some evidence short of a failed test should fall between those two extremes.

I believe the union has a duty to advocate for these players regardless of the popularity among the union membership as a whole.

Maybe it's been that way, but why does it have to be that way? If you got a couple of knuckleheads that are making everyone look bad, why is it in the interest of union membership to stand up and say "we stand with the knuckleheads"?

Why? If you're a player who isn't cheating, why would you want to help the ones who are? They're stealing your milk money.

The union's job is to represent and protect its players - just because this particular issue doesn't affect me directly as a hypothetical union member, who's to say Bud's (or his successor's) next crusade won't be targeted at me for some offense to be named later? Once the union caves on an issue, MLB will smell blood in the water. I am not advocating fighting tooth and nail on every issue, but I would be insisting that MLB follow the policies and procedures both sides agreed to.

It can be read that he's going to cave. It can also be read that he doesn't want to be provocative. There is no need to sound like you oppose any penalty - there are penalties in the agreement and the players and their union have agreed to them. So, they clearly are okay with PED users being punished. It sounds like a wait and see.

This is almost certainly true. The union has never played the PR game. And they only respond to the press when they absolutely have to (such as an All-Star Game press conference.) There is no advantage to their cause whatsoever to fight this before it happens. They will do what they have always done ... lay in the weeds and wait for the owners and Bud to overreach. Then they will clean their clocks in arbitration/court. The owners ALWAYS think they're right when it comes to battling the union and very, very rarely does it turn out in their favor.

Yeah, I never understood the lack of whistleblowers within baseball. There must be guys who don't want PEDs in the game and know about guys using PEDs. The locker room Bro Code seems to have a bit too much sway over players' decision making skills.

I think there are potentially two things at work here;

1. EVERYONE is using something. I personally wouldn't trust a damned thing I bought at GNC or one of those places but I bet these guys suck that stuff down like it's a bag of pistachios. I think there is a little "there but for the grace of God go I" at work that it would be easy to use something banned.

2. As noted by others the process itself is troubling. If I'm a player and the league can change the agreement for penalties here what else can they do? Can they make contracts "non-guaranteed"? Can they allow players to go to the minors at any time? Can they try and reinstitute the reserve clause? That's probably an overkill view but if I'm a player my big thing would be that the players being punished are being punished appropriate via the guidelines that have been collectively bargained. From my perspective MLB seems to be trying to go over and above that.

Really, for all the speculation, we should know soon. I really, really hope MLB doesn't over-reach. To me, if they want to make a statement, they should tone it down. A 50 game suspension that sticks is, for them, much better than a 150 game suspension that doesn't.

It's the same reason we don't want to see criminals railroaded. Sure, if we give the police broader powers they'll put more bad guys in jail. But they'll also put more good guys in jail and, suddenly, being a good guy isn't a guarantee you stay out of jail.

If you're a player, you want to keep other players from using. But you don't want to set it up so that legal stuff you're doing can get you popped. It's a balance. Which is why I say the union won't fight good evidence and penalties in the agreement and may even let MLB get away with a little envelope pushing. But if MLB really goes all out as some leaks suggest, they'll have to fight it. Even a clean player can't let MLB simply show up and ban you for life on little evidence.

Maybe it's been that way, but why does it have to be that way? If you got a couple of knuckleheads that are making everyone look bad, why is it in the interest of union membership to stand up and say "we stand with the knuckleheads"?

My recollection of my scant understanding is they have a legal obligation as a labor union to represent the interests of each member in all issues of employer/employee discipline. Even if the offense is one union member harming another.

They will do what they have always done ... lay in the weeds and wait for the owners and Bud to overreach. Then they will clean their clocks in arbitration/court. The owners ALWAYS think they're right when it comes to battling the union and very, very rarely does it turn out in their favor.

When was the last time this happened? People have posted thoughts similar to this frequently of late, but I'm struggling to remember the last real legal battle. We're not talking the Braun appeal, right, stuff like that? I'm just wondering if this CW still holds true, since (at least I think) it's mostly referring to battles of the 1980s.

(EDIT: Just to be clear that's an honest question- I am wondering if I'm forgetting something more recent.)

#34 I can't think of any fast moves by MLB since they got cited for bad faith bargaining. They were looking at the potential of huge damages and the PA agreed to waive any claims for this when the CBA was finally signed.

Probably earned them a certain amount of good will (collusion 1-3 plus the bad faith bargaining citation cost the hard-liners a huge amount of credibility)

I think it was John Brattain who noted that MLB adopted a distinctly different strategy in the aftermath of the strike. Selig adopted a go slow (and settle for small stuff if necessary) strategy and didn't make any moves without ownership solidly behind him.

Yeah, I never understood the lack of whistleblowers within baseball. There must be guys who don't want PEDs in the game and know about guys using PEDs.

Put yourself in the position of a potential whistleblower. Say you're Jeff Kent on the 2000 Giants, and you know Barry Bonds is using, but you are not yourself using. Do you really want to make a big stink about it, get Barry suspended, get yourself labeled a clubhouse snitch, and divide your team? That doesn't really serve Jeff Kent in any way, and it certainly doesn't serve the Giants' efforts in any way.

I could maybe see someone blowing the whistle on someone on another team, but it's still going to make you look like a snitch. And if you're in a position to know about the PED usage of someone on another team, they're probably close enough to make you think of them as a friend. Do you want to blow the whistle on your friends?

So let me get this straight. Some posters here are surprised that more players don't out their teammates for using PEDs? Really?

So you are a member of the SF Giants. You know Barry is using. I am sure it would be great for me - ultra competative baseball player - to out a fellow member of my own team. Because then I am sure the money that goes to Barry can now flow to me. And the team is sure to do better without that darn cheater ruining the game. And when the team tanks and it is my fault I am sure to be rewarded.

It really does not work that way. The players are not competing against their own teammates (especially not for money). They are playing baseball against each other, trying their best to do well and win baseball games AND to make as much money as they can. Turning in PED cheats accomplishes none of those goals, and in fact actively hurts winning games.

That money comes not by competing against members of their team, but through negotiating against ownership. The same ownership you say the players should speak to about teammates and friends using. Especially is everyone is accusing you - clean baseball player - of using, you are not going to blame the other guys on your team, in the foxhole with you, you are going to be annoyed at those people who are actually blaming you.

#38 From what we can tell from the Mitchell report, some guys were pretty open (Adam Piatt and Larry Bigbie come to mind) others not so much.

From what I can tell, nobody would have been in a position to testify against Bonds (God knows they spent enough time looking for a witness) and I don't think that's unusual. I don't think Scilling for instance was lying when he testified that he had no direct evidence against anybody

What you're left with in many cases is "bacne" or "c'mon, just look at him" (or something similar) and you don't need a player for that. Which is what Jay Cannizaro is supposed to have said about Bonds (though it's interesting that Cannizaro is the only person who seems to have noticed Bonds' bacne -- assuming Pearlman's claims are accurate.)

So let me get this straight. Some posters here are surprised that more players don't out their teammates for using PEDs? Really?

I'm not surprised that teammates weren't outed. I'm surprised that the clean guys didn't go to the union and express their concerns that they were being put in difficult positions professionally by this situation. They, not the owners, the commissioner's office, the fans, the media, etc., were the ones most damaged by the use of PEDs in the game.

I look at it this way - if the owners had approached the players union with this offer:

We think you guys should start using performance enhancing drugs. We won't require it, but it's strongly advised.

No, we won't create more jobs;

No, we won't necessarily pay you more as a whole (though the ones who do use will be in line to make more money);

No, we won't pay for them, nor supervise their use;

If you have a run-in with the law as a result of the purchase or distribution of these chemicals, you'll have to face the consequences;

Same with any health issues that may result from poorly supervised use;

Oh, and your reputation may be damaged by this one day.

How would the players union have reacted? The only difference between that and the situation that existed was that the idea for all of this came from the players, not the owners.

#38 Jeff Kent outing Barry Bonds is a bad example. Besides for the reasons you gave, Jeff Kent never had to fear for his job as a MLer. There's little incentive for a star player or even a solid regular to rock the boat, and there's little upside from ratting out a star, especially of Bonds' magnitude.

The more likely scenario would be a marginal player who fears getting sent down to the minors ratting out another marginal player who is competing for that roster spot and who he knows is on PEDs.

There's also no reason that he has to do so publicly. If he has a concern or evidence of PED use by a peer, he can present it in private, although there is always a risk with MLB that his involvement gets leaked.

The Freedman article suggests MLB will not have an easy time getting an arbitrator to buy its case. Going for draconian penalties without ironclad evidence seems like a huge mistake for MLB, but they've done similar things. And lost.

The Freedman article suggests MLB will not have an easy time getting an arbitrator to buy its case. Going for draconian penalties without ironclad evidence seems like a huge mistake for MLB, but they've done similar things. And lost.

Well, we don't actually know what MLB's case is. Even if you believe the press reports, all those tell us is that Bosch (and others) are cooperating and that MLB will ask for longer-than-usual suspensions. But I haven't seen any articles suggesting what MLB's "case" is to justify those ... well, I guess there was one suggesting they'd hit them once for use and once for not admitting use.

I'm sure clean players are totally fine with being accused of "non-analytical" violations with a precedent that their union has okayed unlimited punishments for them, under the MLB's typically shoddy evidentiary rules.

The MLB has been crushed by the union almost every time they've gone to court or arbitration. I read this as the union baiting the MLB into one more humiliating loss. Weiner has no reason to take PR flak now for opposing something that has not and probably never will happen, he can wait until the MLB actually makes the first move.

There's also no reason that he has to do so publicly. If he has a concern or evidence of PED use by a peer, he can present it in private, although there is always a risk with MLB that his involvement gets leaked.

So if I am a manager or GM and I find out a fringe player has "ratted out" another member of my team? Yeah they are gone. I mena who cares they are just a fringe player, I don't want "that sort" in my organization, especially since it will hit the fan if the team ever finds out (MLB has such a great record of keeping things quiet ... oh wait, no they don't). Plus they are a fringe player, by definition easily replaceable. The fringe guys have to "good guys" and well liked or they are gone.

So stars and regulars are not going to rat anyone out, and fringe players are just barely holding on and would not want a rep with teams or teammates as a "rat". So who is going to "narc" on their teammates? Oh yeah, basically no one, which is of course what we have seen. Shocking.

While I agree that a player outing his own teammate seems far-fetched, this question strikes me as missing the point somewhat. The player would serve as a tipster, not a star witness; it's not the evidence the player has, but the strength of the suspicion that the player would instill in the "authorities" who would then do investigating and collect the evidence. If things work out perfectly (again, far-fetched), the design would be that the outed player never knows the identity of the person who tipped him off.

So if I am a manager or GM and I find out a fringe player has "ratted out" another member of my team? Yeah they are gone. I mena who cares they are just a fringe player, I don't want "that sort" in my organization, especially since it will hit the fan if the team ever finds out (MLB has such a great record of keeping things quiet ... oh wait, no they don't). Plus they are a fringe player, by definition easily replaceable. The fringe guys have to "good guys" and well liked or they are gone.

This assumes that the informant takes his information to MLB rather than to the team management in the first place. Not sure why one would assume that.

This also assumes that players would only know about PED use on their own teams. Would the competitive spirit ever induce them to inform on opponents (i.e. former teammates) whose use they know about?

Keep in mind that just because we don't know about it doesn't mean that no player has ever tried to do something like this. If Player A informs his team of Player B's use and Player B gets sent down as a result (or if Player A does), we wouldn't necessarily ever hear about it.

Keep in mind that just because we don't know about it doesn't mean that no player has ever tried to do something like this. If Player A informs his team of Player B's use and Player B gets sent down as a result (or if Player A does), we wouldn't necessarily ever hear about it.

Well I was responding to people surpised that more players did not inform on other players. I don't find it surprising at all (for reason I am others have stated). I think is very possible the occasional player has informed, but I doubt it is too many because the incentives are not there and other reasons (like I find it hard to believe it has been kept secret by MLB).

7.G.2 in the JDA covers "non-analytic" violations of the agreement, and there are no specific penalties called out for violations under 7.G.2.

Not how I would phrase that really. 7G2 covers "any violation not REFERENCED in 7A through 7F." Those violations are a positive test, conviction for use/possession, "participation" in sales/distribution. So previous clauses reference penalties given "analytic" proof of use and penalties given "legal" proof of use so it's near impossible to see how that doesn't set bounds on penalties given "non-analytic" evidence.

It would be one thing to argue that the non-analytic evidence should be given the same weight as a positive test but (a) how can you argue it should be given more weight that analytic evidence and, even if you pull that off, (b) how can you argue that it should be given equal weight as "beyond a reasonable doubt" evidence? And even if you pull that off, that's only a 60-80 game suspension.

I completely agree that "non-analytic positives" have to proceed under 7G2 and it's true that there are no "specific" penalties laid out there. But, without a second argument that there is evidence of multiple, distinct violations of 7G2, I don't see how you can possibly get beyond a max of 80 games on 1st time use/possession.